- Messages
- 101,863
- Reaction score
- 112,817
Stone cold truth.Muhast said:Dude the o-line has sucked since the bye also. We can't run, were sure not gonna pass. That's a fact.
Stone cold truth.Muhast said:Dude the o-line has sucked since the bye also. We can't run, were sure not gonna pass. That's a fact.
That's what Belichick supposedly concluded. It was Tom Brady the 'nobody's' field vision and quick decision making that was said to have convinced Mumbles he was superior to a number one draft pick.Trip said:His slow decision making is what kills him. Most good QB's seem like they have an idea where they want to go with the ball before it's even snapped but Bledsoe gets rushed and has no clue what to do with the football. It's like every play is a seperate and brand new experience for this guy.
SultanOfSix said:Sorry, but I just can't blame Bledsoe for piss-poor offensive line play. This was a known issue prior to Bledsoe even coming here, that he needed to be protected in order to succeed. What QB who isn't mobile doesn't? It's like taking a player because of his strengths and weaknesses, and then just focusing solely on his weakness.
I absolutely agree with this David. I am not really griping about THIS year. I've wanted a QB of the future since 1996.davidyee said:...I think we have to stick with the situation where "opportunity meets availability". Bledsoe sits down if he performs worse than the underlings in practice. Romo and Henson have to beat him out fair and square.
We are actually too good of a team to pass the time away in developing a player on the field in regular season. Our past draft really improved this team and you have to go with Bledsoe to make the best of the opportunity.
As for the draft or FA we have to see what shakes out of the bushes.
TunaFan33 said:FWIW-Tony Romo is our QB of the future.
Frankly, our OL isn't THAT bad. What can you do when you have a vet QB that has so many bad habits?
Blame Jerry-IF he got Delhomme or Plummer in 03, we would be alot different now.
LaTunaNostra said:That's what Belichick supposedly concluded. It was Tom Brady the 'nobody's' field vision and quick decision making that was said to have convinced Mumbles he was superior to a number one draft pick.
There are many wonderful things about Bledsoe's game, but a slower footed QB has to compensate for lack of physical speed with lightening mental processing.
And Drew has never really improved much on his footwork. They may be why timing offenses like Zampeses' proved Greek to him.
Regardless, for a pocket passer, he has not developed the graceful pocket presence of the great drop back passers.
Not that there was anything much resembling a "pocket" today.
So once again, the oline 'qualified' the performance.
MichaelWinicki said:OK "Drewpies"...
Bring it!
Great stuff.davidyee said:...first Super Bowl there was a TV bit done on why Brady was chosen over Bledsoe.
They highlighted a wr route which could be optioned into a curl or a go. They showed a couple of plays that were run by Bledsoe and a couple that were run by Brady.
What they showed was the lack of anticipation on Bledsoe's part. Brady consistently threw the ball earlier not only helping his lineman with the time to sustain blocks, but also helped the receiver out by hitting him before the safety cold anticipate where the pass was developing.
The piece focussed on Bledsoe's slower decision making.
davidyee said:Brady consistently threw the ball earlier not only helping his lineman with the time to sustain blocks, but also helped the receiver out by hitting him before the safety cold anticipate where the pass was developing.
davidyee said:The piece focussed on Bledsoe's slower decision making.
Easily the most disappointing part of last season. Man that was really frustrating. Well put.Hostile said:Get a blue chip, pedigreed guy.
I still believe we have that, but it doesn't do us any good if he never plays. Last year was a total waste. Back to Parcells being too stubborn to yield to media pressure.
You are so full of crap.Nors said:Miki,Hos, LTN -
Props reading this thread - congrats - a good day for you.
A bad day for the team - and yes Team.
Hostile said:I absolutely agree with this David. I am not really griping about THIS year. I've wanted a QB of the future since 1996.
Jerry played Nero and fiddled while Rome burned. Now he's used gambles and retreads to replace what actually does work. Get a blue chip, pedigreed guy.
I still believe we have that, but it doesn't do us any good if he never plays. Last year was a total waste. Back to Parcells being too stubborn to yield to media pressure. If he's doing these things to "show" them, then he's simply being foolish.
Nors said:Miki,Hos, LTN -
Props reading this thread - congrats - a good day for you.
A bad day for the team - and yes Team.
That's crapola, Nors.Nors said:Miki,Hos, LTN -
Props reading this thread - congrats - a good day for you.
A bad day for the team - and yes Team.
On Parcells, no one was happier than I was that we got him. I was sick and tired of blue light special head coaches.Trip said:It's deeper than just the QB hos. Parcells is stubborn quite often and takes the "I'll show you" approach about many things.
But I'll save starting in on this topic for now, lest I be persecuted and called a chicken little.
It's coming though. This guy's act is wearing thin.
You know what is so hypocritical about him?LaTunaNostra said:That's crapola, Nors.
None of us is having anything anywhere near a 'good day'.
I lost 100 bucks on my third annual Dallas-NY bet with a Jints fan, but the pain in my pocketbook is the least of my worries.
Much more painful is knowing we have four more defensive coordinators coming up who are going to go over that offensive game film with a fine tooth comb, and reach the inevitable conclusion.